Cloppy Clip

I don't believe that's correct.  There's nothing that says the innate powers guy can't do it.  Take a Doc Ock notion...but now each limb has a transformable appendage.  Normal hand, ionic blaster, venom injector with 2-3 different types (various Drains).  Give him 6 limbs;  each has them all.  Each can be controlled separately.  That sure sounds like 8x MPs to me.  And they're not foci.
 
Another example:  Quasar, from Marvel.  The quantum bands are not removable, and thus are not foci.  Any cyborg build would follow the same notion.
 
Power stones...perhaps at the chakra points, for an Eastern-mystic interpretation.  D&D 3E Psionics had a Crystal Master class, embedded stones.  There's a tattooed monk;  tattoos would be another method.  All of these can justify the 2x rule cleanly enough.    
 
Foci make it generally *easier* to visualize/conceptualize.  But they aren't implicit.  With this many exceptions, well, it's pretty pointless to try to limit things.
 
 
 
 

Please accept this brief pause in the conversation as a place for me to clarify my position before anyone starts taking anything the wrong way:
 
I dont have an important opinion anything, and at no point should anyone every worry about who they do or don't agree with, becauase-   as far as I have aleays understood-  these boards are for discussion and sharing, and should never be taken as actual arguments of right and wrong.
 
If I have had that backwards for the last couple of decades, well, thqt's on me,I guess, but it still stands that opinions, ideas, solutions, and problems I have offered have never been offered as any sort of truth, gospel, or one true correct path or anything like that.
 
They are offered in equal parts fairness to others who have put forth their own opinions or ideas to create an interesting discussion (why should I not pitch something out for speculation when someone else has taken the same risk on my behalf, or has provided an enjoyable discussion by having done it?)  and the possibility  that it might stir an idea in someone else that oroves in sime way helpful to them.
 
At their very core, though, if they are not actual rules quotes, they are personal opinions, and never offered as more than that.  
 
Short version:  don't sweat what I do ir don't agree with.  If I wasn't ooen to discussing even things I dont agree with, I would be incapable of participating in any conversation except,those discussing topics from pre-Dark Champions in 4e.
 
I come here for interesting ideas and inciteful conversations, and not necessarily agreement.  I have always believed I can disagree with someone and still see validity in some points of their position.  Nothing is so binary as to be all good or all bad, after all.
 

 
 
there.  Moving on.
 
 
 
 
I do agree with that, but I find that is only one purpose of points.  Certainly there is a mini-game of self-satisfaction when a player finds a clever way to buy an ability he might otherwise not have been able to purchase; I have played that minigame myself a thousand times with characters who have never seen the light of day.  However, another way to look at that is that the advantages and limitations systems- systems which improve or reduce both the effectiveness and points cost of an ability, _provide_ a method by which clever and points-savings builds can be constructed.  The finite nature of character points makes that system more attractive, and thus actively encourages players to find those clever builds.
 
  I find there are two other equally-important purposes of points, such as controlling the progression of the character (it is a rare and ancient character who has the points to buy some of everything, and frankly, the roll-your-own Skills System makes skills effectively infinite anyway, adding in a double-layer of impossible (which can be completely removed by the inclusion of Power Pools and Skill Pools, meaning that with these two constructs alone, you _can_ start with everything.  The fact that most people don't is a testement to them).  Players must pick and choose where to spend their points, either spending them in tiny amounts here and there as they trickle in or saving and budgeting for larger more expensive purposes that won't be possible if they continue to spend points as they earn them.
 
The third critical function of character points, as I see it, is control over the character's development.  In level-based games, there is typically a list of specific boons assigned to a character as he passes from level to level.  In use-to-improve games, characters may advance in skills or abikities that they have successfully used X amount of times-- in some, they may get rusty and lose abilities that have gone unused for too long.
 
In points-buy games, though, the player is at all times in charge of the directions in which his character grows: he will buy or improve those abilities he wishes his character to possess, and not those which he doesn't find appropriate for the character as he sees him to be.
 
 
 
 
This is also something I agree with, though understand that this is a minority and largely unpopular opinion, as most of us old folks (not all) have spent forty years believing and trying to prove the exact opposite.
 
 
 
 
Yes.  I believw we all see that.  What seems to be less-popular to discuss is that other than cumulative targetting penalties, the rules as the exist don't stop a character with 38 guns from attempting to shoot his target with all thirty-eight guns (there is the fall back in "common sense," but that is easily countered with the fallback "dramatic sense," but bear with me here)--
 
There is nothing in the rules to stop a character with thirty weapons from using all thirty--   _nor should there be_.
 
A character can buy sixteen powers and attack a single target with all sixteen powers.
 
A character can buy sixteen foci (without the doubling thing) attacks and use all sixteen of them against a single target.
 
Why?  Because the guy who bought his individual powers as innate non-focused abilities can do it, so the guy who bought his  focused powers individually should be able to do it.
 
The problem is not the number of attacks that can be brought to bear.  The problem is the focus exception.  Even if both character bought identical powers- one through foci and one through innate ability- the character with the foci is enjoying a cost reduction (for the risk), but his power performs in all ways like that of the other character.
 
The innate powers character cannot get double the powers for five points.  The focus guy can.  Effectively, the focus discount gets deeper and deeper.
 
Now someone mentioned innate powers guy being able to fire his innate attack numerous times; I don't know if that applies to the sweep-one-guy maneuver or not, but if it doesn't, then why does he not have access to what the focus guy does?
 
We went through a similar thing years ago, and now we can haymaker fireball.  That argument made way less sense (why can't my energy blast behave like his punch does?) than "if I can have two 16d6 hand cannons for five extra points, why can't I have an extra 10d6 optic blast for 5 pts?"
 
 
 
 
 
That depends, to me, on what the player feels to be the purpose of that / those additional weapons.  If it is for the purpose of two-weapon fighting or handing off to someone else every now and again, or some periodic usage or anticipated even- even to scavenge parts should the original take damage-  well, I have no problem with that.
 
If the player sees it as a way to neutralize or mitigate the odds of losing access to the weapon- that is, he knows that every now and again, it will be stolen, inoperative, or something to justify the focus limitation and rebate, but his intention is pull one of the backups from thin air when he loses access to the original....
 
Well, no.  I do not find that to be an acceptable use of this adder.  Doctor Toybox wants to build a wind up tin duckie that walks around and spits thirty bullets from its mouth.  That's cool.  He wants to be able to spill thirty of them from a burlap sack--  that's a great use for this x2 adder.
 
 
 
Henchman, one thousand lucky glancing blows, one thousand "oops!  I foegot to wind it!"  Whatever.  Though for disarming, at what point does the henchman have to make a search roll to get them all?  How many are left if he fails?
 

 
 
 
 
I feel the same way-   I tend to think this was derived from double locarions and increased Noncombat speeds and such as that and would be used to stock an Amory of mundane weapons (because there are those people for whom- no matter how tthey feel about points as a balancing tool, find determining the total points cost of everyrhing in ther universe and the DEF and BODY of all physical things from starships to mildew-resistant drywall to be its own kind of minigame, (I went through a devase of this myself, early on.  I don't play rules-light, but eventually a light bulb comes on that reminds me 'i need the range and damage dor the slingshot, but  the cost of a 1d plus STR item will never be of consequence)  even in genres where points are not actually paid.  And, as suggested, it just got out of hand.
 
Just one opinion, of course, and worth every penny you paid for it.
 
 
 
 
Right, and heading toward a more correct (for certain opinionated values of correct, admittedly) solution to boot!
 
 
 
 
And that is where I believe this should be-- if the goal is a workaround for being deprived of the item under all but the most extraordinary of circumstances-- the ultimate back-up weapon-- then the build should be an inaccessible focus.  If the goal is to be almost impossible to be deprived, then the build should not be a focus at all, but an appropriate (and maybe even reasonable) special effect:  "what?  I am so groggy....  Why am I tied to a chair?  Wait!  Where is my knife?  Where is my rifle?  Gone!  They have taken them!  Well, it's a good thing they didnt know about the Kalishnikov I swallowed earlier!  Now to induce vomitting.....")
 
 
 
 
 
 
What's good for the energy-projecting goose is good for the fun-toting gander.
 
Just like what's good for the haymakering pugilist brick was determined to be good for the energy-projecting gander.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed-- provided the player knows in no uncertain terms that this does not make him immune to being deprived of the gun.
 
 
 
 
There is more I would like to hash, but I have had this pulled up for three days to get this far.
 
Noone be offended, please, as it is not personal to anyone, but I think it is once again time for me to keave these boards for a while.  I just dont have the time of late, and have been kind of forcing it into my schedule, which really drops the enjoyment factor.
 
 
Thanks to all!
 
 

I'm away from my books at the moment, but do Resource points work the same way as equipment meaning you'd be limited to the sorts of things anybody could reasonably buy in a setting? Because, if so, it might help to think about how you envision the setting, marcusxbaer. If it makes sense to you that a given thing from Gadgets and Gear would be available for anybody with the right access to buy then it would be valid for your Resource points. This way you can adapt the rules to different settings as needs be.
 
Hope I've understood the question correctly, and apologies if not!

Like anything in the Hero System this can be abused.  Just because something can be abused does not mean that non-abusive uses need to be banned.  Most heroic games the character does not pay for equipment, so this is probably going to come up more in a superhero campaign than a heroic.  
 
There are a couple of things that will reduce some of the abuse.  First in a game where you are paying points for a weapon you are considered proficient in that weapon.  When a character starts handing out his spare foci the characters, he hands them out to did not pay for the weapon, so are not automatically considered proficient in the weapon.   That means unless the character using the weapon paid for weapon familiarity with that weapon or the group it belongs to they take a penalty to hit.  Also, chances are any skill levels the characters have are not going to be applicable to the weapons.  This means the characters ability to use said weapons will usually be reduced.   
 
Second most characters only have two hands.  Purchasing an extra 32 does not mean the character can fire all 32 at the same time.   A character could buy extra limbs to be able to do so, but how many characters actually do that.  If you are buying extra limbs just to use extra weapons to exploit the doubling rule the GM should veto that hard.  Drawing a weapon is usually a half phase action so even if the character is dropping the weapons after being fired, they are still limited to how many weapons they can draw.  A character could purchase fast draw for this, but that means extra points and a there are still limits to how many actions you can perform in a phase.  
 
What it comes down to is the best way for the GM to prevent abuse is to simply tell the players to stop the abusive behavior.  You can usually find some reason to veto these types of things, so you don’t seem too heavy handed, but in the end, it is up to the GM to control the game.   If the character paid points for fast draw and two weapon fighting than allowing them to draw and fire two weapons should not be a problem.  If that same character wants to draw and fire 32 weapons that is not something a GM is required to allow.    
 

When I get the chance I’mll look at Combined Attack but my gut says that Hugh is wrong. Combined was designed to allow two different attacks to he fired off at the same time else why is there also Multi-attack which does allow you to fire off the same attack more than once? Also Combined Attack is an optional maneuver right? So the GM just says no? -Right?
 
And I noticed that we as a group hafe seem to have gotten away from the rule about Sfx. That in defining a sfx you may get minor benefits and drawbacks. As Lonewolf pointed out, having 32 pistols should allow a typical human to fire all 32 at once. In fact when I have allowed Two weapon attacks, I limited them to two attacks only. It limits rolls and the drag on the game extra rolls can cause. 

First, it's an option, not a rule, which adds further justification to a GM limiting its use.  That could go as far as limiting it to computers, vehicles, bases and followers (which need not be identical), although clearly it is also directed at weapons and gadgets.
 
GM permission is invoked again for "unusual equipment".  It could be used for signature gear in a heroic game, but that tends not to come up all that often.
 
 
The proficiency rules are definitely a start.  I find this is seldom enforced for one-off picking up a gadget on the battlefield. It's also only useful for weapons (see below), but resolves the combined attack issue.
 
 
Especially in a Supers game, why does the focus need to be hand-held?  It could be a necklace, a wristband, a ring or what have you.  It need not even be a weapon.  That Ring of Mystical Protection (+10 rPD, rED, Power Defense, Mental Defense and Sight Flash Defense, IIF) seems pretty handy investing 15 points to have 8 and hand them around  to the teammates.  Or consider a Ring of Invisibility.
 
 
For experienced GM's, great. But for the game to attract and retain new blood, it cannot assume every reader is an experienced GM.

In fairness, the discussion has fallen even further away from the OP's question of why this is OK for gear/gadgets but not for innate powers.
 
What if the innate power is a gadget, but one so difficult to remove that it is not eligible for a Focus limitation?  "I can Summon these guns to my hands with but a thought, so they are Restrainable, but not a Focus" - can I use the 5 point doubling rule?

If half the discount was 20 points, them the original power must have cost 80 and then become an OAF to save 40.  It would have been 53 as an OIF ("I have so many backup weapons that you can't really remove them all unless I am helpless").  That's only a 7 point difference.  Of course, if you can fire all 16 all at once that's a bigger issue.
 
A specific 5-point adder to the Focused power ("backup") to have a second gun?   Not so big a deal.  Cap it at one, or charge 5 points for each backup, and define it as "can't be used in tandem".

Depends on players.  Some don't care for the mechanics and just want to play something without hard set restrictions like a D&D class.  But yes, for some mechanics is a feature for sure.

Guards!  Guards!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Although the players will be modern, so it might be easier for them to keep track of who does what if you use the modern titles with some waffle about them being translated from whatever language characters are speaking. Depends on their tolerance for learning vocab, I suppose, as there'll be a lot of players that will prefer more authentic titles.
 
It's a good base to work with Mr. R, and I like that you have potential plots seeded into each character. If you wanted somewhere to go next, I'd suggest rivals or obstacles to your mayor and deputy. If you work like this, building off characters you've made previously, I find you can keep better track of how everyone relates to each other, and it gives you more options for games since you have potential NPCs ready to hand when you need an idea for what to introduce next.

I am not sure really if I would say it was to "make them feel clever"  but more that you have to have SOME baseline.  Since points are the currency of creation, they use that.
 
To truely "balance" things for HERO, the GM has to set the baseline points.  Set the guidelines for CV, AP, DEF and Skills.  Then ALSO carefully work with each player to go over concept and build to look for any potential issue.   Finally, they have to reserve the right to require players change something if it proves to be abusive.   Or at least adjust and adapt with the GM.   It is an ongoing process.

Thinking a little more on it, the 5 point doubling rule really feels like a Special Rule that would apply to specific types of games but should not be used universally.   This is in part because of how much 5 points means depending on the point totals of a character.
 
A superheroic character with 400 points could use the 5pt Doubling rule to get a silly number of various gear items, to the point where the Focus, Charges and other limitations stop being a limitation.   At this level 5 point investments are rather cheap.
 
A heroic level character for say, Dark Champions or the like have much less points to work with 175/250 range  (if I remember right)  and while in many campaigns their equipment would be 'free' and only require money not character points, if they did have to buy gear then 5pt for getting a second sword or gun is more fair.  Especially when you consider it is a considerably more significant investment for the character.   While they could still buy the same silly numbers of the items as superheroic characters could, they would be investing a significant percentage of their character points to do so.
 
Personally I am not sure I like the doubling rule,  mostly because it is so fixed cost for so variable of an effect.   You have a 3 real point cost Focus and want to double it?  5 points.....    you have a 150 real point cost Focus and want to double it?  5 points....   It just feels like a house rule for a specific playstyle that was made official but does not scale well to all games.

I cant say I am strict on it; as a 2e player, I don't ever encounter it.  Even if I were to go forward, I don't know that I actually care enough to have a firm opinion.   How can I say this?  I am the guy who has spent a lot of time trying to get folks to understand why points do not equal balance and why the "you get what you pay for" mantra is incorrect specifically because points don't create, measure, or enforce balance.
 
However, I am content being in a miniscule minority with that opinion.  I am, however, trying to subtly point out that this is a great example of points don't relate at all to balance, and just like the Normal Characterisitcs Maxims debates of days gone by, this five-point doubling thing is a great way to get "free" disadvantage points.  Like most rules-lawyering, it is not perfect, and is a little screwy, but let's take a look at the majority opinion on foci:
 
You are taking a cost discount with the understanding that you may (or can or should) be deprived of it now and again (or with some sort of regularity).
 
If you spend half of the discount of 5-point doublings to create fifteen back-ups, the odds that you are going to be deprived of this thing are considerably lower, and you still get that discount
 
 
Again-  I dont care either way; I just find that given the majority opinion on foci, the overall positive reception of this idea is a bit of a surprise.
 
Whatever it is called now: combined, multi, sweep, Death's Head Panoply-- whatever; the ability to unload all of your similar attacks at a single target does not have restrictions that prevent you from firing thirty-two pistols at a single target.  For an extra twenty-five points, you can have those thirty-two pistols.  There are assessed penalties, but if I was going to get this squirrelly, I could spend fifteen point for eight pistols and some more points for hyper-specific skill levels like "only with this one model of Beretta pistols" or "only with Death Blossom maneuver" and still be startlingly more effective than easily half the other people at the table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the reasons above and more, I am not convinced it should be anything but a feature of certain powers, and not some sort of universal fits-all add-on.
 
 
 
Each additional focus is an individual and separate thing.  "Identical" does not deny that they are separate,  as the rules state that for 5 points you can have twice as many, you are still buying them and they are still individual things.
 
 
 
There is no reason non-ultra Multipowers are not valid.  If I have three similar types of attack in a Multipower and that multipower is constructed in such a way that I can to at least some degree use all three of them, then I can do so.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed.
 
 
 

I'd come across his origin story in Champions Beyond, but it's good to know there's more to read up on in Book of the Destroyer; thank you. And it'd be nice to see what Silver Age Champions would look like, but I can't think of anyone other than Darren I'd trust to do it justice. I was a bit late to the party, but after hearing the sad news I did some reading up on the various books he'd done for HERO, and I couldn't believe how much of the Champions univese was formally laid out by him. He left a tremendous legacy behind, even if he did pass much too soon.
 
He's also the writer who got me into HERO in the first place, thanks to Lucha Libre HERO. A book I bought on a whim because it was discounted and sounded funny, and it turned out to be such a faithful and respectful treatment of the genre that I was an immediate convert.

I'd come across his origin story in Champions Beyond, but it's good to know there's more to read up on in Book of the Destroyer; thank you. And it'd be nice to see what Silver Age Champions would look like, but I can't think of anyone other than Darren I'd trust to do it justice. I was a bit late to the party, but after hearing the sad news I did some reading up on the various books he'd done for HERO, and I couldn't believe how much of the Champions univese was formally laid out by him. He left a tremendous legacy behind, even if he did pass much too soon.
 
He's also the writer who got me into HERO in the first place, thanks to Lucha Libre HERO. A book I bought on a whim because it was discounted and sounded funny, and it turned out to be such a faithful and respectful treatment of the genre that I was an immediate convert.

I'd come across his origin story in Champions Beyond, but it's good to know there's more to read up on in Book of the Destroyer; thank you. And it'd be nice to see what Silver Age Champions would look like, but I can't think of anyone other than Darren I'd trust to do it justice. I was a bit late to the party, but after hearing the sad news I did some reading up on the various books he'd done for HERO, and I couldn't believe how much of the Champions univese was formally laid out by him. He left a tremendous legacy behind, even if he did pass much too soon.
 
He's also the writer who got me into HERO in the first place, thanks to Lucha Libre HERO. A book I bought on a whim because it was discounted and sounded funny, and it turned out to be such a faithful and respectful treatment of the genre that I was an immediate convert.

I'd come across his origin story in Champions Beyond, but it's good to know there's more to read up on in Book of the Destroyer; thank you. And it'd be nice to see what Silver Age Champions would look like, but I can't think of anyone other than Darren I'd trust to do it justice. I was a bit late to the party, but after hearing the sad news I did some reading up on the various books he'd done for HERO, and I couldn't believe how much of the Champions univese was formally laid out by him. He left a tremendous legacy behind, even if he did pass much too soon.
 
He's also the writer who got me into HERO in the first place, thanks to Lucha Libre HERO. A book I bought on a whim because it was discounted and sounded funny, and it turned out to be such a faithful and respectful treatment of the genre that I was an immediate convert.

In 1959 a young American soldier named Jeffrey Sinclair was assigned to guard an archaeological expedition to Tibet. Separated from his companions during a severe blizzard, he wandered into a hidden valley and collapsed at the door of the mysterious Nyingpa Temple. The monks there nursed him back to health. Sinclair learned the temple housed an ancient artifact called the Bell of the Chosen, and curiosity led him to enter the room in which it was kept. When Sinclair saw the Bell he felt compelled to ring it, and found himself imbued with incredible strength, practical invulnerability, and the power to move and fly at fantastic speed.

Sinclair flew back to the States and adopted the identity of Vanguard. In 1962 he helped reform the Golden Age superhero team, the Justice Squadron, along with one of its original members, the Drifter. For over thirty years Vanguard protected Champions Earth with his Squadron comrades and on his own, saving it from terrible threats countless times. He's still considered the most powerful superhero who ever lived, and the paragon of heroism. Even Doctor Destroyer, despite his expressed contempt for Vanguard's morality, respected him as one of his greatest enemies, and exulted when Vanguard died during the Battle of Detroit, in shattering the largest of the asteroids DD was drawing toward Earth. (The most recent version of Vanguard's origin appears in Champions Beyond, while his death is recounted in Book Of The Destroyer.)
 
In 1984 Vanguard and Doctor Destroyer faced off one-on-one in Washington (as described in BOTD). They battled for an extended period (duration not specified), DD injuring Vanguard, the latter damaging DD's armor. But the Doctor's energy reserve was no match for his opponent's fantastic stamina and unwavering determination, and he was forced to retreat using a teleportation device in his armor. (It's unsettling to contemplate that the latest generation of Destroyer's armor is significantly more powerful.)
 
You're right, no stats for Vanguard have ever been published. The late Darren Watts had done considerable work on a followup to his magnum opus, Golden Age Champions, tentatively titled Silver Age Champions, to deal with the CU from the late 1950s to the early 1970s; and Vanguard's character sheet would probably have appeared there. But the disappointing sales of GAC led Darren to shelve that project. And now, of course, it's very unlikely SAC will ever see the light of day.

Make it time consuming.  Perhaps 4d6, Decreased Re-use (5 minutes)...that's long enough that it's once per combat.  Now...Extra Time (1 turn);  Gradual (1d6 per turn) (-1/4), Concentration throughout.  Side effect:  healer takes 2 points  Drain STUN and END (CP...since they're both defensive, the half effect rule applies), for every d6 healed, and the points don't start returning until the healing is over.  So 4d6 healing means 8 total CP, so 8 STUN and 20 END.  It'll take a couple extra turns to recover. 
 
Optionally, with conditions like this, you can blow off Decreased Re-use altogether.  The healer can't use this power quickly.
 
Another...4d6 Healing, Concentration, character can take no other actions.  Gradual Extra Turn...roll the effect, divide into as equal-sized chunks as possible, and the target gets that many per healer's phase, with the total healing acheved at the 1 turn mark.  So it's not totally wasted if it gets interrupted.  Same side effect both ways.
 
The points here...
--the healer can't just go bopping around healing everyone quickly
--the person healed is NOT at 100% instantly...not even close.  He can come back and help...after a turn...but hopefully he'll have to be careful about it.  
 
Remember, 4d6 is only 7 BODY.  With the time and effort issues here, the healer can certainly fix people up between fights, but not twice during a fight.  So, why bother with decreased re-use? 
 
Heck, if you want to keep it simple, Extra Time, (extra turn) and Concentration throughout are nasty, from the standpoint of the action economy.  The currency of combat is actions...what can each side do?  The root of this in Hero is, of course, SPD.  If a BBEG needs to take on 5 characters with SPD 4, well, he'd better be a LOT faster.  Or in D&D, where this was also recognized, the BBEG must have multiple attack options, or he pretty much get sliced and diced fairly quickly unless he's just insanely more powerful.  Here, the healer and the recipient are taken out for a full turn, EACH, and will be feeling aftereffects.  The underlying argument for Decreased Re-use largely vanishes. 
 
EDIT:  another simple house rule:  limit healing to, let's say, once per hour rather than once per day.  Then Decreased Re-use starts from that.  Another point...the time chart shifts are not even close to equivalent, one to the next.  There's really very little difference between 5 minutes and 20 minutes, and not much between 5 minutes and 1 hour.  On the flip side, there's a MASSIVE difference between 1 turn and 1 phase for combat powers...but next to none for out-of-combat powers.  So perhaps the standard (house)  rule for healing is re-use is, let's say, 5 minutes...that's too long for combat re-use.  +1/2 to drop to 1 minute;  +1 to drop to 1 Turn, +2 to drop to 1 phase, which basically eliminates it.  This would let you build 1d6 Healing, usable at will, for a base 30 points.  If that's too cheap for you, then adopt another house rule that to apply certain advantages, there's a minimum base point level you have to buy.  This isn't just for healing, it's for any power where massive advantages might get applied to minimal base costs.  For me...Teleport.  3", Megascale to 10,000 km...teleport anywhere on the planet.  Add any advantages you want on top of that, it won't matter.  +5 total advantage is still only 18 points.  

There's a lot that can be done going down this route, and for what it's worth your example character sheet looks very clean and readable so cutting down characteristics does aid in presentation to start with.
 
I think the ideas you have for replacing STR and CON can definitely work, and you can tweak the numbers to get the same results on average, but will you be okay with the extra randomness? For Stun rolls, that probably won't matter too much, but because lifting works on a geometric scale a difference of 4 on the roll would mean an 4-fold change in lifting ability. If you're focusing on the more heroic-level Fantasy HERO gameplay, would it be worth looking at tweaking the STR chart to either a linear one, or to the one from APG (I think the first one) that makes +10 STR double lifting instead of +5.
 
But that's purely a matter of preference, and the core mechanic of replacing the STR stat with lifting rolls is sound enough to work with. And, since it bears repeating, that is a very nice-looking character sheet!

Interesting question. Let me answer that one first before segueing to the rest of your original inquiry.
 
The biggest event the 5E books were building towards, that didn't materialize, was a major invasion of Earth by the alien Hzeel. In the official future timeline, the repulsion of that invasion so weakened the Hzeel that their enemies the Dorvalans (aka Perseids, the people of the Champions team member Ironclad) were able to attack and destroy the Hzeel homeworld. When Cryptic Studios bought the IP they decided they wanted to develop the Gadroon and Qularr, who until then had been little more than mentions in CU history, as renewed invaders of Earth, so as of last publication the Hzeel were still observing to determine the outcome of their hostilities.
 
The 6E sourcebook for all things Istvatha V'han, Book Of The Empress (published 2011) describes her second (failed) invasion of Earth in 2007, as well as her plans for another assault in 2016 or 2017. No mention has been made of how the latter played out.
 
Champions Online executed Luther Black's apotheosis as an adventure series, but did so in 2010 rather than 2012, and changed many other details from DEMON: Servants Of Darkness. They also went ahead with the apocalyptic war between Heaven and Hell centered on Vibora Bay which is "prophesied" in that book, but Steve Long once remarked he didn't want to incorporate what they did into our game's history.
 
If you're interested, the late great Hero Games author, Scott Bennie, created a free "Lore Primer" PDF updating the CU timeline through 2017 with events that played out in the MMO, as well as giving an overview of the setting, and discussing the differences between the tabletop version of the CU and the electronic one. Here's a link to where you can download it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzHmfdC4jXPpVmxGd1ZxcHVfbFk/view?resourcekey=0-aQezNwGn_cAOG1eUYbYz2Q
 
IIRC the last 5E Champs books which were published after the sale to Cryptic, and which were influenced by the new IP owners, were Book Of The Destroyer, Book Of The Machine (in-depth review of Mechanon), and Monster Island. BOTM has almost no details directly affected by Cryptic's continuity alterations, aside from Mechanon's physical appearance and how that affects a few of his abilities. As for the other two books, they were written before Cryptic developers had finalized what they wanted to do with the setting, so some of their details differ from what was finally done in the MMO. BOTD actually carries on with returning Doctor Destroyer to action in 2002, and describes his major activities and schemes through 2008, which the 6E references later retconned.
 
 

Not finalised yet but I wanted to begin thinking about what character sheets might look like (it helps me focus on what needs to go on them)...had to take a snapshot to avoid going over space...
 
 

My take would be, don't mess with LTE outside the very narrow confines in 6E2.  Lowering LTE is basically Drain END with a return rate at 5 points per hour...not exactly, but close enough, and that's a clear, concise expression.
 
The mechanism of wound transferal healing is straightforward, but that means the healer can't heal himself.  It can also be offset with Regen, which'd be an essential purchase for a wound transferal healer.
 
The healer is taking the LTE hit, right?  Well, 5 points per hour is +1 3/4.  1d6+1 Drain, 5 points per hour, is 36 points...I suggest d6+1 because Standard Effect would then be 4.  If you're adhering to standard adjustment powers, that gets cut in half...2 points, so 10 END.  Pretty clean at the table, which is nice.  You'd get -1/2, probably, since you're only applying this to the Decreased Re-use advantage, which is pretty expensive, but not that bad.
 
But I'd have to ask, what's the goal?  What is the problem you're trying to solve, and how does this accomplish the solution?  What do you *want* Healing to be able to achieve?  
 
One of my favorite superhero worlds is Drew Hayes' Super Powereds.  Healers are fairly common and extremely highly valued.  Extensive healing generally has a side effect a lot like an LTE reduction...on the person healed.  His explanation is that the body does have major physiological reactions to severe pain and broken bones, and OK, healing fixes the injuries, but not necessarily the indirect effects from those reactions.  It's an approach I like, so I hear where you're coming from...it gives characters a reason to avoid *needing* a lot of healing because of those lingering effects.  It promotes caution while leaving healing as a sweet, powerful adjunct.  Now...what is it replacing?  Probably max effect.  Note that decreased re-use time is mostly of importance because we're dealing with game mechanics, and the points tracking of character sheets.  Because it's a set of books, so the purpose of any power set is completely different.  Points, schmoints.  Balance?  Get serious.  Building characters for a game is itself a massively contrived exercise because of the constraints of the at-table environment, where balance is often a central consideration.  That simply doesn't exist in the comics, movies, or UF or superhero fiction...unless the writers invoke a deus ex machina to give the wimps a chance.  Think FF vs. Galactus and the Ultimate Nullifier.  Or a ridiculous, contrived weakness like firing the missile down the vent tube to blow up the Death Star.  It goes straight for 90 bleeping MILES, not encountering any obstacle, and staying on track????  YMMV but I *loathe* these. 

The value of negation relative to other defenses is a PITA.  Negation works against AVADs, Drain STUN, and Drain BODY.  Which opens up a massive rules question:  if I have, say, 5 DCs physical and 5 DCs energy negation, with no limitations, then what's my defense against
 
--AVAD Power Def?
--AVAD Mental Def?
--AVAD Flash Def?
--NND LS: Cold?
 
Is it really applying to ALL of them?  If I buy it as STUN Only, does it still apply?  What about BODY only?  That's a poor choice, but still allowed.  Or, is it AVAD vs. Resistant PD only?  That seems to contradict the "apply the DN to an AVAD even if the char lacks the specified defense."  
 
DR has the same language.  Its 2 principle issues are overly high cost, and horrific structure.  DR applies LAST...so if you've got, say, 12 total DEF and 50% DR, against even 12d6...you're taking 15, and those 30 points of defense are only buying you 15, on average.  Up the basic defenses, reduce the effectiveness of the DR.  DR can be viable...but with pretty specific builds, and even then it's likely to be a somewhat profligate approach.  The core issue with DR is, the cost did not change between 5E and 6E.  In 5E, the point of DR was insurance against a bad KA STUN roll.  There's some risk of that in 6E, but it's much less likely.  5E's DR also says it applies to an NND or AVLD even lacking the specified defense...so the only compensation 6E added was to have it apply to Drain BODY and Drain STUN.  Not even close to equivalent, IMO.
 
 
Me?  In a game where the villains are dangerous, and MAY well kill?  Being stunned means you are at EXTREME risk.  It's a VERY, VERY bad idea when the guy that just knocked you out, will take advantage.  I'd say even 10% chance of a single roll stunning you is too high.
 
The point of the brick is to either occupy the enemy's brick...or, to try to force as many opponents to attack *him* as possible, drawing the brunt of the action.  The brick's the damage sponge...you can hit him over and over and over, and he's not going down.
 
With many of the other types...a point to remember is that the source material is NOT quantitative, it's narrative.  There's no points...so a Magic VPP can have No Skill Roll and Zero Phase, while supporting a good attack power, defense power(s), and something for movement...all at once.  Try that in Hero, and your eyes bug out at the cost.  It's narrative, so either the mentalist is fairly safe and out of the way (possible) or for some reason the villains choose not to attack...or they just miss all the time.  Spidey's another example.  Spidey has VERY little resistant defense and generally low defense.  His schtick is dodging...tipped off by Spidey Sense, too...and possibly, the ability to roll with the punch, as a form of damage reduction.  You need to give Spidey a DCV about 6 above the villains' OCVs...which is viable for a grunt, but gets to be debatable for named villains.
 
So what do they get?  Narrative protection.  The writer says the attacks miss.  In a game?  We can't do that.  As a secondary point...the source material uses flowing time.  We don't.  We have segmented time.  It's understandable, but the bad guys WILL have their opportunities.
 
Now, to be sure:  glass cannons are a pretty common problem.  The D&D mage, especially prior to 3E, was probably the best exemplar.  (At least in 3E, mages can try to get enough Con to help out.)
 
So...for me, I really want to avoid getting stunned, and I don't want to get KOd by too few hits.  So my blasters and mentalists and martial artists DO have decent defenses.  Not as much as the tough guys, but respectable.  YMMV.